JAMES AGAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Death row inmate James Agan appealed the denial of his second rule 3.850 postconviction motion, raising claims of Brady violations and withholding of exculpatory evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding all claims procedurally barred because they either were previously raised or should have been raised earlier.
The Court held that all of Agan's claims were procedurally barred. The Brady/discovery claim was barred because the Public Records Act was available to Agan before the January 1, 1987 deadline for postconviction relief, and he should have exercised due diligence to obtain the information. The remaining claims were barred because they either were previously raised or should have been raised in prior proceedings.
[1] A claim is procedurally barred if it was raised in a prior post-conviction relief motion.
[2] A claim is procedurally barred if the information supporting it was ascertainable through due diligence prior to the statutory deadline for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Rule 3.850 bars an untimely petition based on information previously ascertainable through the exercise of due diligence.”
Establishes the procedural bar applicable to Agan's claim—information obtainable through the Public Records Act should have been discovered before the deadline
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAgan is a death-sentenced prisoner who filed a second rule 3.850 postconviction motion. In October 1988 or later, an investigator for Agan's counsel b…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Public Records Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Agan, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the trial court’s denial of relief requested in his motion for postcon-viction relief. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(1), (7) & (9), Fla. Const. An extensive procedural history precedes this case. See Agan v. Dugger, 835 F. 2d 1337 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1205, 108 S.Ct. 2846, 101 L.Ed.2d 884 (1988); Agan v. Dugger, 828 F. 2d 1496 (Fla.1987); Agan v. Dugger, 508 So. 2d 11 (Fla.1987); Agan v. State, 503 So. 2d 1254 (Fla.1987); In re Agan, 466 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1985) (mem.); Agan v. State, 445 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 225, 83 L.Ed.2d 154 (1984). The facts are recited in detail in Agan’s direct appeal. Agan, 445 So. 2d at 326.
In this second motion pursuant to rule 3.850, Agan raises anew a prior claim that the state attorney at his trial violated Florida discovery rules as well as Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by withholding allegedly exculpatory evidence. This claim previously has been raised on a rule 3.850 motion. Agan v. State, 503 So. 2d 1254, 1255 (Fla.1987). Agan now contends that on or after October 31, 1988, an investigator for Agan’s counsel was given a brief opportunity to scan a Department of Corrections file and later alleged that it contained exculpatory information previously unknown to Agan. Agan’s counsel subsequently sought access to the file under Florida’s Public Records Act, chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1985), and was provided a copy in January 1989.
The facts alleged by Agan clearly are controlled by our prior holding in Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla.1987), where we stated: The [public records] act was equally available ... prior to January 1, 1987, the cut off date for post-conviction relief in the instant case. Rule 3.850 bars an untimely petition based on information previously ascertainable through the exercise of due diligence.
Like Demps, Agan also had until January 1, 1987, to avail himself of the public records act and file for relief. Moreover, after this deadline had passed, Agan raised the precise claim now before this Court and, once again, did not avail himself of the public records act. This claim thus is doubly barred.
We find the remaining claims also procedurally barred. These are: (1) the evidence discovered pursuant to Agan’s public records act request supports his innocence, thus entitling him to relief; (2) the trial court failed to provide serious and independent consideration of nonstatutory mitigating evidence; (3) the trial court failed to provide a factual basis in support of the death sentence; and (4) the case involves unconstitutional doubling of aggravating factors. All of these claims either were or should have been raised in the prior proceedings before this Court. The conclusion of the trial court below is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. BARKETT, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
BARKETT, Judge,
concurring specially.
In light of Agan’s several confessions and admission to the trial judge when he pled guilty to this crime, I find the claims asserted meritless.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zeigler v. State, 632 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1993)…did not avail himself to the Act at that time. Thus, it is clear that the information was ascertainable prior to 1987 through the exercise of due diligence. These issues are now barred. Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla.1987); Agan v. State, 560 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1990). As his third claim under rule 3.850, Zeigler contended that the State fabricated evidence which was presented at trial, specifically a bullet discovered in an orange grove. After an evidentiary hearing on this issue, the circuit court r…
-
Buenoano v. State, 708 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1998)….850 bars as untimely a motion based on information obtained as a result of a chapter 119 public records request made after the cut-off date for postconvietion relief), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 830, 115 S.Ct. 104, 130 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994); Agan v. State, 560 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1990) (same); Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196 (Fla.1987) (same). Although we conclude that the trial court properly proceeded with Buenoano’s rule 3.850 motion, we agree with the trial court that if Buenoano, in pursuing her public records requ…
-
Spaziano v. State, 570 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1990)…ligence, and we agree with the trial court that these claims are procedurally barred since they were raised in a fourth postconviction motion, which was filed beyond the two-year limitation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Agan v. State, 560 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1990); Hall v. State, 541 So. 2d 1125 (Fla.1989); Clark v. State, 533 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1988); Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196 (Fla.1987). [*291] Second, there is no basis for this claim on the merits. A review of this entire record, particularly…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Bottoson v. Florida, 469 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1984)
- Bennie Demps v. State, 515 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1987)
- Agan v. Dugger, 835 F.2d 1337 (11th Cir. 1987)
- Agan v. State, 445 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1983)
- Revie v. United States, 487 U.S. 1205 (U.S. 1988)
- Musso v. Baker, 487 U.S. 1205 (U.S. 1988)
- Agan v. State, 503 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 1987)
- Agan v. Duggar, 508 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1987)
- Agan v. Dugger, 828 F.2d 1496 (11th Cir. 1987)